On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and
carried unanimously, the Board approved the Special Minutes of
March 29, 1995, Board Retreat, as presented.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES

CLERK OF COURTS CONSENT AGENDA

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and
carried unanimously, the Board approved the following requests:

Accounts Allowed

List of warrants paid prior to this meeting, pursuant to Chapter 136 of the FloridaStatutes, which shall be
incorporated into the Minutes as attached Exhibit A and filed in
the Board Support Division of the Clerk's Office.

Contractor Bonds

New

4519-95 Ed Kern (Aluminum)

4869-95 Ronald Hagadorn (Pool Maintenance)

5375-95 Hagen Homes, Inc. (Residential Builder)

5376-95 Debra L. Raimonda d/b/a The Sign Source

(Specialty Sign)

5377-96 Reliable Air & Heat, Inc. (Heating & Air Cond.)

5378-95 Richie L. Evans DBA Hardee Roofing (Roofing Contractor)

Reinstatement Notice

4249-96 Robert W. Merritt

Municipalities/Ordinances

Request to acknowledge receipt from the City of Clermont,
Miscellaneous Ordinance No. 275-M, providing for the annexation of
a certain parcel of land contiguous to the present City boundaries,
passed and ordained by the City Council of the City of Clermont on
March 28, 1995.

Request to approve List of items to be deleted from Fixed
Assets for the month of April, in the amount of $13,500.66. (List
attached)

Municipalities/Reports

Request to acknowledge receipt of the following:

(a) District Financial Corporation's Annual Financial Reports for Units of Local Government, and District's Audited Financial Statements for Fiscal Year ended September 30, 1994 for the Country Club of Mount Dora Community Development District.

(b) District's Annual Financial Reports for Units of Local Government, and District's Audited Financial Statements for the Fiscal Year ended September 30, 1994, and Minutes of the February 24, 1995 Meeting of the Board of Supervisors for the Village Center Community Development District.

(c) District Financial Corporation's Annual Financial Reports
for Units of Local Government for Deer Island Community Development District for the Fiscal Year ended September 30, 1994.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES

ELECTIONS

Ms. Emogene Stegall, Supervisor of Elections, appeared before
the Board to discuss the creation of two new precincts. She stated
that one would be Pennbrooke Fairways on the west side of Leesburg,
which would be Precinct 75, and one would be Lakeview Terrace
Condominiums in Altoona, which would be Precinct 76.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hanson and
carried unanimously, the Board approved the creation of Precinct 76
at Lakeview Terrace Condominiums, Altoona.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and
carried unanimously, the Board approved the creation of Precinct 75
at Pennbrooke Fairways, Leesburg.

PERSONAL APPEARANCES

PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION

The following individuals, who were on the Teen Pregnancy
Prevention Task Force, appeared before the Board for the
presentation of the Proclamation for the Citizens' Commission for
Children, which was read by Commr. Gerber, and declared April 23-May 1 to be "Teen Pregnancy Week in Lake County": Hillary Knepper,
Coordinator of the Citizens' Commission for Children; Allison
Thall, Human Services Manager and Chairperson for the Teen
Pregnancy Prevention Task Force; Marcie Klosterman; Myrna Coulson;
Valerie Wells; Linda Phillips; Doris Taylor; Claire Souilere; Linda
Branham; and Kitty McKeen.

Norman "Ted" Herschelman, Area Maintenance Supervisor, Public
Services/Roads Division/Maintenance Area III (Umatilla) - 36 Years
of Service

AGENDA UPDATE

Discussion occurred regarding proposed revisions to today's
agenda.

Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, requested that the
proposal from the Land Use Forem Network be added to the agenda,
under County Manager's Business, for discussion later in the day.
ADDENDUM NO. 1

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT/ORDINANCES/ZONING

Commr. Gerber announced that the Board would move forward to
unfinished business, and discuss the request for approval to
withhold all permits, clearances and other authorization for
construction on Deer Island pending compliance with PUD Ordinance
No. 40-90, and the request for approval to proceed against any
surety which may have guaranteed performance thereunder.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, addressed the
Board and stated that an offer had been received from Mid-State

Paving, as of yesterday, which might be a solution to the problem
at Deer Island.

Mr. Bruce Duncan, Assistant County Attorney, informed the
Board that Mr. Alvin Mulford, Vice President, Mid-State Paving Co.
Inc., would be making a presentation, and that this possible
solution had been discussed with the County Attorney's Office and
appeared to be the best solution.

Mr. Mulford addressed the Board and explained the
circumstances evolving around the problems that existed at Deer
Island. He stated that the auction that took place in March was
supposed to generate enough funds for the off-site work, in order
to transfer lots to Mid-State Paving, in exchange for their debt.
Mr. Mulford stated that there was a $450,000 expense for off-site
work, and an estimated $302,000 was generated from the auction that
could go towards the off-site work. Mr. Mulford stated that Mid-State Paving had made this proposal to the various people involved
with the project. The proposal involved Mid-State Paving excepting
the $302,000 for the off-site improvements, and in exchange, the
difference between $302,000 and $450,000 would either be paid to
Mid-State Paving from proceeds from All-State Insurance Company, or
be transferred to Mid-State Paving in lots, in lieu of the money.
The remaining debt that Mid-State Paving would have on the project
would also be conveyed in lots to them. The proposal was being
sent over night to the parties, and if they approved it within ten
days, Mid-State Paving would be under construction on the off-site
work and selling lots. Under these circumstances, Mid-State Paving
would own 61 lots.

Mr. Hoban informed the Board that, before Mr. Mulford had
contacted the County Attorney's Office yesterday, he was prepared
to propose a building moratorium to the Board, but because the
proposal seemed to be very good, he requested permission to
continue to work with Mid-State Paving, and all of the parties
involved, and if things fell apart again, he would come back to the

Board for authorization to go through the proper steps to impose a
building moratorium, but he was not proposing this today. It was
noted that there was a total of 231 lots in the project, and
approximately 29 lots had been transferred through auction and
other sales. Mr. Mulford stated that he hoped that everything
would be executed by next week.

Commr. Swartz stated that there were two issues, the balance
of on-site improvements, and the off-site improvements. He stated
that he would support the proposal, if it got the improvements
done, but on the other hand, he felt that the Board needed to have
a date certain, at which time, if this did not happen, and it had
been given a reasonable amount of time, the Board would be prepared
to take action. He stated that the Board also needed to address
the issue of the compliance of the PUD itself with the PUD
Ordinance. Commr. Swartz questioned the Attorneys, based on their
understanding of what was being proposed, if the close of business
a week from this Friday, May 19, 1995, would be a reasonable date
for this to be put together.

Mr. Hoban stated that the County Attorney's Office could come
back to the Board with an agenda item on May 16, 1995, regarding
the status of the situation, and the Board could take further
action at that time.

Mr. Mulford explained that Mid-State Paving had filed a lien
in December, 1994, on the project, and this lien was the only lien
that would have any validity on the lots. All of the other liens
had been filed against the golf course property only.

Discussion occurred regarding the surety bond and the CDD
bond, with Mr. Hoban explaining that the only way to get
clarification of these bonds would be through declaratory action in
court. He stated that staff was requesting permission to file a
declaratory action, if things did not work out with the proposal.

Commr. Good questioned whether any action had been taken to
stop people from driving on the streets to get to the golf course.

He stated that this was a public safety issue that needed to be
addressed, and he felt that stop signs were needed, in order to
assist in resolving the problem.

Discussion occurred regarding the on-site improvements and
whether the signage was included in Mid-State Paving's contract.

Mr. Mulford stated that he was not aware of any on-site
construction being in his contract, and that a lot of times the
developer preferred to handle specialized stop signs themselves.

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, explained that
the Board could direct his department to place stop signs in the
appropriate locations, in the interim. It was noted that, from a
liability standpoint, the legal staff felt comfortable with this
suggestion.

Commr. Good made a motion, which was seconded by
Commr. Hanson, to direct staff to make the situation at Deer Island
safer by taking the appropriate steps to alleviate the concerns of
traffic.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz questioned how the County
would be reimbursed for taking the action to place stop signs in
the development. He stated that the problem was the people driving
to the golf course. He explained that many people were concerned
that the County would end up being responsible for paying for such
things in this development, even though the developer and the
representative for the CDD bonds repeatedly indicated that this
would never happen.

Commr. Good clarified that the motion was to resolve the
problems regarding the traffic, whether the County got the
developer to do it, or the County ended up doing it, because this
was a public safety issue.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he would like to see the motion
withdrawn, and the second to the motion, in order for the District
Commissioner, when he makes his motion in regards to construction,

to address this issue in the time frame that was presented in the
proposal.

Commr. Good withdrew his motion, and Commr. Hanson withdrew
the second to the motion.

Commr. Swartz made a motion to authorize staff to work with
particularly Mr. Mulford and his proposal to try and get the
necessary funding through the CDD reserve bonds to finalize the
off-site and the on-site improvements that remain at Deer Island,
and to have the necessary documents signed by May 16, 1995 for
Board consideration, and failure to have an agreement in place, it
would authorize the County Attorney's Office to take the necessary
legal action to go for injunctive relief to ensure that those
requirements are met.

Mr. Hoban suggested that the Board might want to direct the
County Attorney's Office to file declaratory action, to determine
the rights of the bond, and to begin the process of imposing a
building moratorium on the entire Deer Island. The building
moratorium would encourage the parties to come together to work out
an agreement, as being proposed by Mr. Mulford. He did not feel
that a ruling for an injunction would accomplish this.

Commr. Swartz explained that, instead of having the County
shut down permits, he would like a judge to provide the relief and
to stop the permits.

Mr. Hoban explained that, in order to do a building moratorium
in the State of Florida, the County needed to file the same
regulations and procedures for enacting a Land Development
Regulation (LDR), which would include two public hearings after 5
p.m., and essentially staff was suggesting starting this process.
He understood that the motion implied that the Board would want
declaratory action in court about the validity of this before the
County actually imposed a building moratorium.

Commr. Swartz explained that the motion did not include taking
action for a building moratorium, but it did include going into
court to get a declaratory judgment on the Board's ability to
impose one.

Mr. Hoban explained the motion, as follows: by the next Board
meeting, the County Attorney's Office was to continue to monitor
the agreement that was being worked out between Mr. Mulford and the
other parties; if all of the agreement was worked out
satisfactorily, no action would be taken by this Board on May 16th.
If the County Attorney's Office came back and reported to the Board
that everything had fallen apart again, at that point, the County
Attorney's Office would start the process to go into court for
declaratory action on our rights under the bonds, and for
essentially a declaratory action on the County's right to impose a
building moratorium on the entire Deer Island project.

Commr. Cadwell seconded the motion made by Commr. Swartz.

Commr. Hanson stated that she would not support the motion.
She stated that the first part she could support, but the second
part, the Board could make a decision on May 16, 1995, because the
decision did not need to be made today. Commr. Hanson commended
the parties that had come together to resolve the problems.

Mr. Carl Lindstrand appeared before the Board and stated that
he was here representing a lot of people who could not be here
today, because they worked. He stated that he was happy to see the
action being taken today. Mr. Lindstrand explained that most of
the problem areas, particularly in regards to the road and golf
course, were resolved in the PUD, after meeting with the
developers. The citizens in the area wanted the development to
proceed, as described in the PUD. He explained that the road
improvements were well defined in the PUD, and he wanted the Board
to know the importance of the pathway along side of the road. He
stated that, if Mr. Mulford was going to resolve the problems that
existed, the community would certainly support him. He addressed
Ordinance 40-90 and the PUD that was established by the Ordinance
and stated that Mr. Mulford needed to be made aware of the details
in the language of the PUD, and the owners responsibility under the
CDD.

Commr. Gerber called for a vote on the motion, which was
carried by a 4-1 vote. Commr. Hanson voted "no".

Commr. Swartz discussed the PUD, in relation to the golf
course, and stated that the developer and the golf course and their
agents were not adhering to the PUD as it was approved. He
suggested that this case be referred to Code Enforcement for it to
be pursued as an alleged violation of the PUD Ordinance dealing
with the operation of the golf course.

Mr. Hoban explained that the Board needed to adopt the LDRs
tonight, in order to give the Code Enforcement Board jurisdiction
to handle this question. Until these amendments were adopted, the
Board still lacked jurisdiction for the Code Enforcement Board to
deal with this issue. He explained that the Code Enforcement Board
was a board of limited jurisdiction and could only enforce certain
provisions of the LDRs. The Code Enforcement Board does not
enforce Developer's Agreements, CUPs, or PUDs. If the Board
adopted what would be in front of them tonight at the public
hearing scheduled for amendments to the LDRs, the Code Enforcement
Board would have the jurisdiction, and as of May 14, 1995, the
Board would have the jurisdiction to enforce a complaint about the
golf course for violation of the PUD.

Commr. Swartz suggested that the Board get authorization for
the staff and/or the County Attorney's Office to either proceed for
injunctive relief, as a failure to comply with the provisions of
the PUD Ordinance, or through forwarding this issue to the Code
Enforcement Board, if they had the authority to do so.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the developer could come in and
request an amendment to the PUD in regards to the golf course, as
another option.

Discussion occurred regarding other private golf courses
within developments, with staff noting that there had never been
another golf course approved in the County that began as a private
golf course.

Commr. Cadwell noted that he would prefer to see the issue go
to the Code Enforcement Board, and if the developer wanted to
request an amendment to the PUD, he had the option to do so.

Commr. Swartz made a motion for the Board to authorize staff
to proceed through the Code Enforcement Board, if that body had the
authority subject to LDR revisions, to ensure that all of the
provisions of the PUD Ordinance, particularly with regard to the
golf course, were adhered to, and secondly, if either was not a
course of action that was provided for in the LDRs, then they were
authorized to begin to proceed for injunctive relief to ensure that
the provisions of the PUD Ordinance, again specifically with regard
to the golf course, were adhered to, and to the extent that the law
allowed, and what was appropriate, to proceed against the developer
and/or the operator of the golf course, whichever, or both, if they
were appropriate.

Mr. Mulford stated that, if the golf course stopped, the whole
project would be dead, and no off-site improvements would be made.

Commr. Good questioned whether the motion should also be
stated so that the Board does not predispose the Code Enforcement
Board, if that was the action taken. If there was no wrong being
done, then the Board would be informed and that there not be any
action taken.

Commr. Swartz explained that his motion did not presuppose,
but would refer, for action, to the Code Enforcement Board, if
appropriate.

Commr. Hanson stated that she would prefer to see it left with
the Code Enforcement Board, and then the Board could taken action.
In the mean time, the developer could come forward with an
amendment to the PUD, and she would suggest that this move forward
rather rapidly.

Commr Good seconded the motion made by Commr. Swartz, after
clarification was made that the Board would refer the issue to the
Code Enforcement Board.

Commr. Swartz clarified that, if for some reason there was not
authority of the Code Enforcement Board to hear this issue, then
the County Attorney's Office would proceed for injunctive relief.

Commr. Hanson stated that she would rather the issue come back
before the Board before it automatically went onto court.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was
carried by a 4-1 vote. Commr. Hanson voted "no".

Mr. Lindstrand stated that the people have seen no effort of
the developer to acquire the 250 outside members for the golf
course that he was allowed in the PUD. He simply opened the course
to the public and leased it for this type of operation.

Commr. Good questioned whether the Board had taken expeditious
action to rectify the public safety question to place stop signs on
the roads.

Mr. Hoban clarified that a determination would be made in two
weeks, as to who would be rectifying the public safety problem by
placing stop signs on the roads.

Discussion occurred regarding the suggestion for staff to
temporarily place the stop signs, with Mr. Stivender explaining
that staff was of the understanding that there was a liability
problem for the County, and therefore, the signs could temporarily
be placed on the roads to make it safer.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and
carried unanimously, the Board approved to direct staff to
temporarily place stop signs in Deer Island, with the understanding
that they would be removed, once a legal determination was made.

Mr. Hoban informed the Board that it was the County's normal
code enforcement practice that, if it was going to site them for
violating a provision in the code, or rezoning, and they applied
for a PUD amendment, the County would automatically put the code
enforcement action on hold, until this Board had reviewed it, and
not go through with the code enforcement action.

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

Commr. Gerber suggested that Tab 5 regarding the Records
Management Program be pulled for discussion.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and
carried by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved Tabs 4-35, with the
exception of Tab 5, for the following requests, and with it being
noted that Commr. Cadwell was not present for the discussion or
vote:

COMMUNITY SERVICES

Accounts Allowed/Ambulances-Hospitals

Approval of payment of monthly Medicaid hospital bill in the
amount of $23,276.82, and the Medicaid Nursing Home bill in the
amount of $33,763.25 for the month of February.

Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Private Industry Council

Approval to terminate Lease Agreement Between Lake County and
David Scott Reed Relating to Private Industry Council located at
205 North Texas Avenue, Suites 4 and 5, Tavares, Florida, pursuant
to subsection 4.3 of said lease, to become effective on June 30,
1995, and authorization for Chairman to sign the required "written
notice".

County Policy

Approval to eliminate the policy regarding a one year
residency requirement for individuals seeking assistance through
the General Assistance program within the Division of Human
Services.

Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements

Approval to allocate the balance of $6,000 from the Family
Health Council contract to the Women's Health Center, a division of
Community Health Centers, Inc., subject to the finalized contract
being drawn up by the County Attorney.

HUMAN RESOURCES

Employees

Approval of Certificates for employees with one year of
service, as listed in backup material.

INFORMATION SERVICES

Communications

Approval to send a letter to the Honorable Robert A.
Butterworth, Attorney General, asking for an opinion on the
imposition of the fifty cent fee on the cellular companies
operating in Lake County.

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Building Department

Approval of the Agreement Between Lake County and PCD,
Inc./Jam-Lake County, Inc. Relating to the Issuance of Building
Permits while Platting is in Progress - Commission District 2,
subject to County Attorney's review and approval.

Accounts Allowed

Approval of $50 fee for a minor variance for EPB
consideration, which would also be used for other minor LDR
variance requests.

Accounts Allowed/Bonds/Subdivisions

Approval of release of a Maintenance Bond in the amount of
$9,687.50 for maintenance of improvements in Spring Lake Pines,
Phase II.

Accounts Allowed/Bonds/Subdivision

Approval of release of a Maintenance Bond in the amount of
$16,755 for maintenance of improvements in Vista Verde Subdivision.

Accounts Allowed/Subdivisions

Approval to release an Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the
amount of $3,000 for the performance of common driveways in Lake
Glona Shores.

Accounts Allowed/Subdivisions

Approval to release an Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the
amount of $2,000 for performance to complete sodding in Lake Ridge
Club, Phase I.

Accounts Allowed

Approval to release an Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the
amount of $42,645 for the performance of improvements in South 40
Business Center.

Accounts Allowed

Approval to release an Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the
amount of $190,000 for the performance of improvements in
Southridge Industrial Centre.

Accounts Allowed/Subdivisions

Approval to release an Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the
amount of $11,595.56 for the performance of improvements in
Treasure Island Subdivision.

PUBLIC SERVICES

Accounts Allowed/Road Projects

Approval and execution of Change Order No. 1 to Countywide
Resurfacing Project No. 1-95 for additional work throughout the
County in the amount of $39,169.25 from the Transportation Trust
Fund - Commissioner District 4.

Accounts Allowed/Road Projects

Approval and execution of Change Order No. 1 to Sidewalk
Project No. 16-94 for additional work on Dora Avenue in the amount
of $1,125 from the Transportation Trust Fund - Commissioner
District 3.

Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Municipalities

Approval and authorization for Chairman to sign the Traffic
Signal Maintenance Agreement Between Lake County and the Town of
Lady Lake.

Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Municipalities

Approval for Chairman to execute an Interlocal Recreation
Agreement with the City of Groveland, a recipient of the Parks and
Recreation Capital Improvement Program, in the amount of $20,000
that was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on March 21,
1995.

Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Municipalities

Approval for Chairman to execute an Interlocal Recreation
Agreement with the Town of Montverde, a recipient of the Parks and
Recreation Capital Improvement Program, in the amount of $20,000
that was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on March 21,
1995.

Deeds/Roads-County & State

Acceptance of the following Statutory Warranty Deeds:

Carol A. Ciener

Morningside Drive #3/4-4568

Vista Vision, inc., a Florida Corporation

C-#455 at SR #19

Guenter Herold

C-#48

Mariann T. Burgess

C-#44A & #4-5880

Wayne H. Gey and Brenda G. Gey

C-455

B & W Groves, Inc.

#3-3026

William N. Watson and Pamela S. Watson

#2-2350

Harry L. Sullivan and Clarice Sullivan AND

L. Dean Mauck and Frances V. Mauck

Crossen

Deeds/Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements

Acceptance of a Statutory Warranty Deed for 7 feet of Right-of-Way and a Non-Exclusive Easement Deed for 10 feet from:

Wilkinson Auction and Estate Liquidators, Inc.

State Road #46

Deeds/Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements

Acceptance of a Non-Exclusive Easement Deed from:

Pierce Hardy Limited Partnership

U.S. #441

Resolutions/Signs/Roads-County & State

Rights-of-Way, Roads & Easements

Approval of a Resolution to post "No Dumping" signs on Lake
Unity Nursery Road (1-6313) in the Lake Griffin area to prevent
unauthorized dumping on County road right-of-way.

Resolutions/Signs/Roads-County & State/Municipalities

Approval of a Resolution to post "No Parking" signs on Old
441, on the north shoulder of the road, in the Mount Dora area for
a distance of not less than 200 feet west of intersection with
Morningside Drive (3/4-4568).

Atlantic Auto Supplies, Inc./Authorization to award Quote #Q-2-5-25, One New and Installed Mohawk Medium Duty Lift and issue a
purchase order within budgeted funds. This award recommendation is
to the second high quoter. It is recommended that the Board reject
the low quote of Jones Lifts, Inc. at $7,725.00 for the following
reasons:

1.) Specification number four required a synchronization,
hydraulic fluid displacement using chains, cables or overhead
obstruction. Jones quoted a cable equalization which could be a
potential safety problem and requires a greater amount of
maintenance than the hydraulic system specified.

2.) Specification number nineteen required a mechanical safety
release. Jones quoted an air operated single point release which
could be a potential safety problem and requires more maintenance
than a mechanical release specified.

3.) Specification number twenty-six required a carriage bearing
that is double sealed, self lubricating. Jones quoted a self
lubricating slider block which will wear out faster than the
carriage bearings specified.

4.) Specification number twenty-eight required a five year
warranty. Jones quoted only one year on labor and travel.

It is also requested by Fleet Maintenance that the County
standardize on Mohawk Lifts because of the safety and low
maintenance features, plus the extended warranty. The County
already has two Mohawk Lifts, plus this lift is the recommended
award is approved and an additional lift will be budgeted for
fiscal year 95/96. (See Attachment 1)

Hunter-Nelson, Inc./Authorization for the Chairman go sign
amendment number 1 to Hunter-Nelson's contract for Lake County
Intermediate Storage and Transfer Facility - Design Build, Project
No. P-5-5-01, pending the County Attorney's final approval. This
amendment defines the Sale Tax Recovery procedure and the
Construction Manager's responsibilities. The Board approved the
original contract utilizing Sales Tax recovery on February 7, 1995.

SOLID WASTE

Accounts Allowed/Contracts, Leases & Agreements/Municipalities

Approval to accept the City of Leesburg Inequity Settlement
through September 30, 1993 in the amount of $105,372.08, and
approval for the Chairman to execute all necessary documents to
enter into an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Leesburg for
Fiscal Years 1993/94 and 1994/95 as per letter dated March 3, 1995,
subject to County Attorney's review and approval.

COMMUNITY SERVICES

COUNTY POLICY/RECORDS MANAGEMENT

Ms. Mary LaFollette, Records Management Specialist, addressed
the Board to discuss the request for approval of the Records
Management manual and the policy for the Records Management
Program. She informed the Board that she had been working with the
Clerk's Office, and it had been shown to Mr. Don Gullickson,
Supervisor of Property Records.

Ms. Barbara Lehman, Chief Deputy, Finance, Audit & Budget,
addressed the Board and stated that the Clerk's Office had a
question regarding the definition of "public records" versus
"official records". She stated that the policy before the Board
showed the same definition for both. She further stated that the
Clerk's Office makes a distinction between "official records" to be
items that are recorded through the Recording Department, as a part
of the official records of the County and through the court system.
She stated that "public records" were other types of records that
were produced in connection with County business. This policy does
not make a distinction between the two types of records.

Ms. LaFollette explained that she deals only with the public
records. When the Records Management Program was started, it was
with the understanding that the Clerk would still be responsible
for his documents that come before the Board, and anything that had
Board action. The manual deals specifically with the documents and
records that the departments strictly consider public records, and
not official records.

Ms. Lehman referred to Page 6, which defined "public records",
and Page 69, which defined "official record", and requested that
clarification be made to the definition of "official record" on
Page 69.

Ms. Wendy Breeden, Library Coordinator, addressed the Board to
discuss the issue and suggested that "official record" be re-defined for clarification.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and
carried unanimously, the Board approved the Records Management
manual and the policy for the Records Management Program.

BIDS/PURCHASING

Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, informed the Board
that a request had been received to discuss Tab 34, Item C
regarding the recommendation to reject the low quote of Jones
Lifts, Inc.

Mr. Bill Julian, Southeast Regional Manager, Rotary Lift,
appeared before the Board and stated that Mr. Paul Jones, President
of Jones Lifts, Inc., which was the distributor that bid, was
present in the audience.

Ms. Roseann Johnson, Buyer, Purchasing Department, addressed
the Board and explained that she sent a quote out for a medium duty
lift, #Q-2-5-25, and received two responses, Atlantic Auto Supplies
at $8,500.00, and Jones Lifts, Inc. at $7,725.00. She explained
that there were deviations to the specifications received from
Jones Lifts, Inc., and she sent this particular quote to the
department to evaluate.

Mr. Mike Brooks, Road Operations Director, addressed the Board
to explain the recommendation to award the quote to the second
lowest bidder, Atlantic Auto Supplies, for a Mohawk Lift.
Mr. Brooks stated that he wanted to standardize on Mohawk Lifts.

Mr. Julian, representing Rotary Lift, stated that the
specifications that the Purchasing Department informed him that he
did not meet were really an exclusive spec in this particular
brand. He stated that, if the County wanted to stay with
uniformity, he was informed that there was a procedure where they

could have approached the Board and not gone out to bid. In this
case, it did go to bid, and there was a 10% difference, because of
some of the specifications. He stated that both lifts have been
approved by a third party testing source, so as far as any of these
deviations from some of the specification, whether exclusive or
not, both had been approved. He addressed the issue of the
warranty and stressed that the company met the specifications.

Ms. Johnson explained that the quote was sent to eight vendors
and only two responded. She further explained that there was no
standardized policy for this particular lift, so with the
purchasing policy, the department had to go out for a quote.

Commr. Swartz stated that, if the County was going to write
specs that pretty well limit it to one item, then there was no use
having other people put in a quote or bid, when they cannot meet
the specs, because the specs were designed to be a Mohawk.

Discussion occurred regarding other types of lifts, other than
Mohawk, that have the same specifications.

Commr. Swartz stated that he was concerned with people
spending their time putting in quotes when they have no chance of
meeting the specifications. He then discussed getting into a sole
source situation.

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, noted that it
was the intention of the department to get a Mohawk Lift.

Commr. Swartz suggested to the Purchasing Department, and the
department heads, that if the County was really planning on a sole
source contract, that this be done, and to not put Mr. Julian and
his company through an exercise and futility.

Mr. Julian explained that he has dealt with many different
municipalities and government bids, and they would do exactly what
had been done today, because they were satisfied with a product,
but he wanted to appear to see what chances the company had for
future sourcing. He stated that normally some investigating was
done ahead of time, even though someone might be satisfied with a

project, because there were new products coming out all of the
time, which might be better suited for the County and would be a
better investment, and he felt that, in this case, it would
definitely be a better investment of the taxpayers money, at a 10%
difference, with a company that did meet the specs.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether staff had sufficiently
concluded that the Mohawk medium duty lift, which staff was asking
that the Board approve at a higher price, was the best one, because
of having similar equipment for maintenance and repairs and
familiarity, or did staff feel there should be some review of other
equipment, and it outweighed that certainty.

Mr. Stivender responded that staff was comfortable with the
purchase of the Mohawk medium duty lift, even though it was the
high bid, and he noted the low maintenance costs.

Commr. Gerber stated that she disagreed with the whole
situation, because the Board was doing nothing to motivate the
staff to do exclusive requests, if they were being allowed to do
this every time this type of situation came up. If the policy was
the low, most responsive bidders, then the Board was not motivating
staff to write the specs exactly the way they want them.

Commr. Swartz suggested that, if staff really wanted a
particular piece of equipment and had good reason and
justification, then they needed to bring it to the Board.

Commr. Gerber stated that the item had already been approved
through the consent agenda.

Mr. Julian stated that the company did submit by the County's
standards and codes and recommendations, and was the lowest bidder,
and that the company did meet specifications.

No further action was taken on this item.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 10:40 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would
take a ten minute recess.

CITIZEN QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD

The Chairman called for any public questions, comments and
concerns from the citizens present at the meeting. There being
none, the Board continued with the agenda.

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

RESOLUTIONS/COMMITTEES

Ms. Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager, referred to Page 4, Line 5
of the Resolution recommended by the Citizens' Commission for
Children amending Section 1, Membership of Resolution No. 1994-97
and noted that the Resolution should read "This Resolution shall
take effect on May 17, 1995."

Ms. Hillary Knepper, Citizens' Commission Coordinator, was
present to answer questions of the Board regarding the voting and
non-voting members.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and
carried unanimously, the Board approved the Resolution, as
recommended by the Citizens' Commission, amending Section 1,
Membership of Resolution No. 1994-97, as corrected.

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS

FACILITIES AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

Mr. Mike Anderson, Director, Facilities and Capital
Improvements, addressed the Board to discuss the request to approve
Change Order No. 2 to the Belleview Underground contract to provide
water to a point of connection for Carroll Fulmer Trucking, at a
lump sum of $8,740.00. Mr. Anderson stated that this was similar
to a previous request that was brought forward for American Hotel.
He stated that the County had an obligation to bring the water to
the property line.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and
carried unanimously, the Board approved Change Order No. 2 to the
Belleview Underground contract, in the amount of $8,740.00, as
presented above.

ASSESSMENTS/SUBDIVISIONS

Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by
Commr. Cadwell, to approve to levy an assessment lien against
property owned by Robert Foster, Jr., 2621 16th Avenue N., St.
Petersburg, FL 33713-5609, described as Picciola Island Sub, Lot
7, Blk A, Sec 13, Twp 19S, Rge 24E, in the amount of $238.00, as
recommended by staff.

It was noted that Mr. Foster was not present, nor a
representative for Mr. Foster.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was
carried unanimously.

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/MUNICIPALITIES/TAXES

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, was present to
discuss the request for approval and execution of the Interlocal
Agreements with 11 Lake County Municipalities regarding the
distribution of the first and second cents of the Local Option Gas
Tax.

Ms. Kathy McDonald, Special Projects Coordinator, addressed
the Board and explained that the Interlocal Agreement did not
affect the County's funds at all, and it did not affect the
percentages that the cities were currently getting from the first
two cents. It did affect the distribution method to the cities,
75% transportation expenditures and 25% on population, and they
wanted it updated every year. As part of the request, staff was
requesting that the League of Cities, or someone, furnish the
proper distribution method on a yearly basis. Ms. McDonald
explained that Astatula, Mascotte, and Minneola had not submitted
an agreement, but the County did have the majority of the
population with the interlocals that were submitted.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Good and
carried unanimously, the Board approved the execution of Interlocal

Agreements with 11 Lake County Municipalities regarding the
distribution of the first and second cents of the Local Option Gas
Tax.

COMMITTEES/ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Jim Barker, Director, Environmental Management, was
present to discuss the request for approval to reinstate the
Acquisition of Environmentally Sensitive Lands Committee. He
stated that the Natural Resources Advisory Committee (NRAC) was
recommending that this Committee and the acquisition of sensitive
lands program be revisited and that the Committee be re-activated.

Commr. Cadwell explained that there were enough government
entities buying land, and he did not feel that the Committee needed
to be re-activated. If things happen different in the Legislature
and the Board felt a void out there, the Board could reconsider
taking action.

Mr. Barker explained that the Committee was designed to look
at all of the programs and methods and determine if there was a
need for further involvement by the County. He stated that the
Committee did not want to replicate or duplicate anybody elses
acquisition programs, but it would become involved with other
programs rather than start up its own programs. He noted that,
before all of these issues could be finalized, the Committee was
deactivated, but that there were procedures that the Board might
want to be involved in that have not been addressed by the
Committee. Mr. Barker informed the Board that staff did not have
any procedures that would allow it to be involved in these other
programs.

Commr. Gerber questioned the possibility of a sub-committee
being formed under NRAC to address the issues.

Commr. Swartz stated that the issue before the Legislature
right now dealt with the only Lake County based land acquisition
program, which was the Water Authority, and until this issue was
resolved, the Board might want to decide whether it wanted to look

further at the issue before the Board. He explained that the
Committee had requested to be de-commissioned, because it could not
see where it was going in the short-term. He felt that it might be
better to form a sub-committee of NRAC and supplement it, if it
wanted to be supplemented, until the Legislature acted and a
referendum was scheduled for November, 1996, before Lake County
would actually know the direction it was going on this issue. He
stated that the request was coming from NRAC and questioned whether
it would be comfortable forming a sub-committee, with the Board
authorizing the sub-committee to include some additional people, if
it felt it wanted to add other individuals. He suggested that this
be sent back to NRAC, and if they were satisfied with the
suggestion, the Board could amend the Resolution that would allow
them to create some sub-committees where they felt would be
necessary and to supplement those committees with people who were
not on NRAC.

Commr. Gerber noted that NRAC would be making a presentation
this afternoon, and the Board would have a chance to ask them how
they felt about sub-committees.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and
carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone action on the
request to reinstate the Acquisition of Environmentally Sensitive
Lands Committee, until after the NRAC presentation at 2 p.m., or as
soon thereafter as possible.

REPORTS - COUNTY ATTORNEY

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/MUNICIPALITIES/ASSESSMENTS

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Rolon Reed, Interim County Attorney, presented the request
for approval of the execution of the Agreement of Invalidation
Regarding the Christian Care Center.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, was present to answer questions of
the Board.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and
carried unanimously, the Board approved the request to execute the
Agreement of Invalidation Regarding the Christian Care Center.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

REPORTS - COUNTY ATTORNEY

CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/SUBDIVISIONS

LAWSUITS AFFECTING THE COUNTY

DCA Appeal of Sugarloaf DRI

Mr. Rolon Reed, Interim County Attorney, addressed the Board
to discuss the request for approval to execute the Agreement for
Binding Arbitration relating to the Sugarloaf Development of
Regional Impact (DRI). He noted the letter in the backup material
received from Ms. Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary, Department of
Community Affairs (DCA), to Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney,
suggesting a procedure which the County was free to join or not
join the binding arbitration of the vested rights issue. Mr. Reed
informed the Board that there was no contract between the
developers and DCA, but that an Addendix or an Addendum to the
Agreement was being prepared.

Mr. John Howell, Maquire, Voorhis and Wells, P.A., appeared
before the Board and stated that the last item required for the
completion of the Agreement regarding the arbitration was a re-draft of what would become the Development Order for the project,
if the arbitration comes out in favor of the developer. This was
in the process of being developed and was expected very soon. He
informed the Board that the arbitration had been scheduled for
June 29, 1995, with particular documents by the parties due on
June 1, 1995. The hearing was scheduled to be heard in Tampa.

Mr. Reed explained that, as of July 24, 1994, the Development
Order was approved by a 3-2 vote and implicit in the motion and
explicit in the discussion, it was the view that the project had
vested rights under the common law theory thereof, namely equitable
estoppel.

Commr. Swartz explained that the issue was not explicit as a
part of the public hearing, but, in terms of his position, was
relevent to the approval of the Development Order. There had not
been specifically a hearing on vested rights for this development.
He explained that whatever discussions, with regard to vested
rights on this development, that had come out of the vested rights
Ordinance, which had been challenged by DCA, the previous County
Attorney had entered into some agreement with DCA, which indicated
that the County would repeal it and come back with a new vested
rights Ordinance that provided for the necessary procedures and a
public hearing process, and none of this had occurred.
Commr. Swartz stated that this should occur before the Board
decides to enter into binding arbitration.

Mr. Howell informed the Board that the determination for
vested rights was based on a common law theory of equitable
estoppel. The arbitration would take place based on this theory.

Commr. Swartz disagreed and stated that there were some
statements at some of the public hearings that it was common law
vesting, but in fact, the vested rights letter was issued on the
basis of the vested rights Ordinance, which was also stated at the
public hearing process. Therefore, any letters of vested rights
that were based on the flawed vested rights Ordinance most likely
would not be valid. Whether any project had vesting needed to be
determined through a process that provided for the procedures, the
hearing, and the review that was consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, and that has not been done on this particular development, or
on any other developments. The only vested rights public hearing
that was held was an appeal of a denied vested rights
determination.

Mr. Howell explained that the transcript of the hearing, which
the vesting rights were approved, showed that the County Attorney
was very rigorously questioned by Commr. Swartz whether it was
common law vesting or statutory vesting. The County Attorney made
it very clear that it was common law vesting, and a clarifying
letter was received from the County Attorney's Office.

Commr. Swartz stated that the County Attorney's Office did not
have a vested rights Ordinance that was in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan to be able to make that determination, and the
issue before the Board that day was approval or denial of the
Development Order. One of the reasons he opposed the Development
Order had to do with the issue of vested rights, but there had not
been specifically a vested rights hearing, a vested rights
determination based on something that would be considered
consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan.

Discussion occurred regarding the hearings where the Board
discussed the issue of vested rights for development.

Commr. Swartz clarified that there was no motion, much less
approval by the Board, that declared that the development was
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, or more specifically had
vested rights. He noted that the Board did not have before them
today a completed Agreement, and even if it was complete, it had
not been signed by the other parties. He further noted that, even
if a completed Agreement was before the Board, it would be entering
into a binding arbitration on an issue for which there had never
been a determination made that was based on the Comprehensive Plan.
The only determination of vesting that occurred was a letter from
the County Attorney's Office what was based on a flawed Land
Development Regulation (LDR) vesting Ordinance that was challenged,
that DCA found not in compliance, and that the previous County
Attorney agreed with DCA that the Ordinance was not consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan, and that the County would agree to repeal
the Ordinance and enact an Ordinance that would be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and provide for an administrative and
hearing procedure, to consider vested rights cases, and none of
this has occurred.

Mr. Reed stated that no one had asked that the County formerly
take a position on the issue. He stated that, if he were asked, he
would have to say that it was his understanding that the County had
acted in regard to this project on the belief that it did have
vested rights.

Commr. Cadwell noted that his vote had been predicated on the
grounds that this project was vested, and the vote had been based
on whether there was common law vesting on the property.

Commr. Hanson stated that the Board had moved forward on the
recommendation of the Board's legal staff, and the Board had every
right to rely on the County staff's recommendation.

Commr. Swartz stated that the County Attorney does not have
the authority to grant vested rights, nor does the County Manager
at this point in time, because the Ordinance that gave them that
authority, the Board had agreed to repeal with DCA and replace it.

Mr. Hoban informed the Board that two week ago he faxed a new
proposed Ordinance to DCA and Ms. Bonifay, who represents the
intervenors, asking for comments. He had asked them, within a two
to three week period, to make comments that the three attorneys
could agree to and bring to the Board. He was anticipating
receiving comments within the next week or so, and regardless of
the comments, to bring them to the Board in the next three to four
weeks, which would be the end of May. Once the Board has a
workshop on it and comfortable with the issues, he would anticipate
adopting a vesting Ordinance the same time the Board adopts impact
fees, sometime in late June, early July or August. He stated that,
in the mean time, staff continues to make vested rights
determinations based on common law statutory vesting.

Mr. Reed explained that the arbitration hearing would be
focused solely on the facts and circumstances of Sugarloaf, and in
its context as a development of regional impact, and it would have
a very significant factual and legal aspect that would apply to any
of the current vested rights determination that the Board has yet
to make or not make. He stated that he would support the position
that his predecessors advanced to the Board and the Board acted on.

Commr. Hanson suggested that the Board approve the results of
the binding arbitration, once both parties sign the Agreement.

Mr. Howell explained that common law vesting did not come from
either Chapter 163, or Chapter 380, but comes from case law.

He further explained that the intent that was discussed was to
isolate the effect of the determination as to this case, and to
this case only, and not establish any precedential value on the
determination of the arbitrator. The only intent of the
arbitration was to establish in the Agreement the manner in which
DCA would apply their authority through Chapter 380 to the review
of this case.

Commr. Swartz emphasized that there had been no review by this
Board, even at those public hearings, as to whether or not this
project was vested under Chapter 380, FloridaStatutes, and
questioned the position that the Board would send its mediation
group forward. He stated that there had never been a public
hearing that dealt with the statutory vesting, Chapter 380, and if
the Board was going to enter into an Agreement for binding
arbitration, staff needed to go forward, and this Board would have
to make a determination to send them forward.

Discussion occurred regarding Page 3, Paragraph 2, Purpose of
Agreement, with Commr. Swartz stating that the letter that came
from DCA, that questioned the vested rights, was based on Chapter
380 and statutory vesting.

Commr. Gerber requested that whoever attends the arbitration
hearing in behalf of the County, let it be known to the arbitration
team that the Board had not made a decision based on Chapter 380.

respective claims regarding vested rights to binding
arbitration,...", and the vested rights that the Board was talking
about was Chapter 380, and this had never been done, and staff
clearly needed to have direction on this.

Mr. Howell stated that there were only two aspects of the
FloridaStatutes that speak to Chapter 380 vesting. One was in
Chapter 163, which says that a DRI Development Order is vested, and
in Chapter 380, which deals with projects that were approved prior
to 1973. He stated that the Board voted to approve the Development
Order for Sugarloaf, after a thorough discussion in two separate
hearings, and that the project was vested. The determination that
it was vested followed by the approval of the Development Order by
a majority vote was the determination of consistency as to the
Board's concern, consistency with whatever appropriate provisions
of the Comprehensive Plan were or were not appropriate for this
development.

Commr. Swartz stated that, at a minimum, the Board needed to
make a determination to request its legal counsel to submit the
respective claims regarding vested rights under Chapter 380 dealing
with DRIs, and that the Board needed to get a vested rights
Ordinance that was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the letter from Ms. Shelley
encouraged all parties to expedite the process. He stated that the
first issue was whether the project was vested in Lake County, and
that would be answered in the process. He encouraged the Board to
agree to the arbitration.

Commr. Swartz stated that he was not going to vote for an
Agreement that was not complete and signed by the appropriate
parties, and if the Board was going to enter into the Agreement, it
was clear that, based on Page 3, Paragraph 3, that as a party to
the Agreement, the Board needed to have a position relative to
Chapter 380 statutory vesting of the DRI, because that has never

been an issue that has been discussed specifically by this Board,
or a determination made by the Board.

Mr. Reed stated that, if it was the consensus of the Board, he
could prepare two position papers, one pro and the other con, and
put it on the agenda.

Commr. Good stated that staff needed to contact Ms. Shelley
and get clarification in the letter as to whether the project was
vested under Chapter 380, as indicated in the Agreement. Secondly,
the Board needed to take action and get direction from the County
staff as to how this project relates to Chapter 380.

Mr. Reed discussed the time frame in which the Board wanted to
accomplish the direction being given, but urged the Board not to
establish a definite time, so that the necessary time could be
allowed for staff to get all pertinent information for the Board.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and
carried unanimously, the Board authorized staff to review the
proposed Agreement in light of Secretary Shelley's letter and
determine, if in fact, the sole purpose of this vested rights
determination and arbitration was the basis of Chapter 380 and
statutory vesting of DRIs, and secondly, that staff be instructed
to research and bring back to the Board position and/or positions
relative to a position that the County should take should they
decide to enter into binding arbitration with regard to the claim
of vested rights under Chapter 380 dealing with DRIs.

Charles E. Bradshaw LUPA - No. 94-1-1-2

Mr. Rolon Reed, Interim County Attorney, addressed the Board
to discuss the request for acceptance or rejection of the proposed
settlement of DOAH proceeding to begin by DCA concerning Charles E.
Bradshaw LUPA No. 94-1-1-2.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing Royal Highlands,
appeared before the Board and stated that Royal Highlands was a
Development of Regional Impact (DRI) which was in the proposed
Comprehensive Plan area. Mr. Richey presented the Board with a

brief history of the land use plan and map amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan, which was challenged by the Department of
Community Affairs (DCA). He noted that staff and other parties met
with DCA and presented the breakdown of the land that had a problem
meeting timeliness. He stated that it became obvious that there
were thousands of acres that had been acquired by the State of
Florida through various land purchases, and those lands were taken
out of rural, or suburban, and some even out of urban and urban
expansion. It was his understanding that, after providing all of
the information to DCA, the Comprehensive Plan objection was going
to be withdrawn, but they had already filed for a hearing. He
stated that DCA requested County staff to take all of the
information that had been provided to them and reflect it on the
County's Land Use Map. Mr. Richey stated that Mr. Mark Knight,
Chief Planner, had prepared a map months ago identifying properties
owned by the St. Johns River Water Management District and the
Water Authority as public resource lands.

The memorandum received from Mr. Reed on April 3, 1995 noted
that the amendment would change from rural to suburban some 1,323
acres of uplands, 511 acres of wetlands and 168 acres of water
located in Section 12, 13, 24, and 25 of Township 21, Range 24.
Most of this land was just south of the Turnpike at the U.S. 27
overpass where a new Turnpike interchange was under construction,
which was indicated in Figure 2 of the backup material.

Mr. Richey noted that DCA was only requesting that the County
accurately reflect the State purchases on the Land Use Map, which
would allow them to amend the map near the DRI and allow his client
to use his land. The Board could then address the removal of
suburban land use, which it had taken action on earlier, once staff
had the information to present to the Board, which may include
discussion of the Bradshaw property.

Mr. Richey presented an overview of Figure 2, the Current and
Proposed Future Land Use.

Mr. Howell addressed the Board and presented a letter from
Ms. Bonifay, which recounted the facts and background of the
Bradshaw Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA). Mr. Howell explained that
a significant amount of time had passed since there was an
agreement in principle between DCA and the County and the
landowners, as to what needed to be done to resolve the concerns of
DCA, and the suburban land use change that was coming to the Board
would not have been an issue, if this had been done in a timely
manner.

Mr. Richey explained that DCA challenged the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment and stated that it was inconsistent with the Plan,
which was because there were over allocations. He noted that DCA
indicated it would settle the situation, if Lake County amended its
Land Use Map to show those State purchases, which were reflected to
them in the documents that were provided. Mr. Richey stated that
the changes were made to the overall Land Use Map in October, 1994
based on correspondence from the County Attorney and DCA to
Mr. Knight. Mr. Richey stated that DCA had suggested that the
amendment to the Land Use Map could be added onto any Comprehensive
Plan Amendments at any time, or the County could enter into a
Stipulated Settlement Agreement as outlined by DCA, which would
settle the outstanding Administrative Hearing.

Discussion occurred regarding the preparation of the map, with
it being determined that it had not been presented to the Board for
review, nor transmitted, or adopted.

Commr. Swartz stated that the existing DRI was vested under
Chapter 380, FloridaStatutes, but the Board had already instructed
staff and would be the subject of an upcoming public hearing, to
eliminate suburban land use designations from the map, and staff
was instructed to begin looking at areas that, either because they
have infrastructure, or because of development patterns that
existed, through a conscientious planning effort, to come back to
the Board at the next amendment process, to then look toward

indicating in areas that are deemed appropriate, to identify urban
and urban expansion areas. He stated that this was exactly the
process that should be taken by the Board in this case, and for the
Board not to put back on the map or create new suburban, when in
fact suburban was being taken off of the map. Even though the DRI
was vested, it was a nonconforming land use, because it was an
island of an urban density within a rural land use classification.
Secondly, Commr. Swartz stated that he did not support entering
into a Settlement Agreement that would reinstitute suburban onto a
map of which the Board wants to get rid of suburban and create a
further island that would be inconsistent with what the Board was
doing. He stated that the applicants would still have the
opportunity, either through the County's amendments that would be
coming in the next phase, if, in the County's planning process, it
would be determined that this would be an area where some of the
suburban existed, or conceivably rural where additional density
would be placed.

Commr. Hanson explained that she would have a difficult time
not going along with the proposed Settlement Agreement, because DCA
had found, under certain circumstances, that the Agreement would be
in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that it
would not be constructive for the Board to not go along with it.
She wanted it known, too, that all of the Board members did not
agree to pull out the timeliness issue, and that the Board could
have worked with the suburban land use category to find a way to
make timeliness work, and also come back to DCA. Commr. Hanson
stated that the Board should move forward with the Settlement
Agreement and deal with the rest of County, as the issue comes
forward.

Commr. Cadwell stated that the project had come a long way,
and the Settlement Agreement would satisfy DCA and the County, so
the Board should adopt the Agreement.

Mr. Richey suggested that he be allowed to proceed to acquire
the additional land, to amend the PUD/DRI to add the additional 156
acres in the suburban range, adding it to a Development Order that
already has low density, which allows under three dwelling units
per acre. He explained that there were all kinds of lot sizes in
the project, as approved in the DRI, but that the overall gross
density for this piece of property would be lower than the suburban
density. He stated that he should be given the opportunity to meet
timeliness and all other necessary criteria, before the Board did
away with suburban in an area that has suburban density, and to add
it to his land use. He explained that he was not asking the Board
to change timeliness, but to give him the opportunity to meet
timeliness on the land next to the densities that he already has
approved.

Commr. Hanson noted that the decision of the Board today
needed to be based on the suburban land use category as it existed
today.

Mr. Richey discussed the Settlement Agreement with DCA and
explained that the question was whether he was maintaining the
relative densities. He stressed that there had been thousands of
acres that had been purchased by the State that had been taken off
the map for the purposes of density, and since then, there had been
800+ acres of density, which were urban and urban expansion, taken
off of the map.

COMMISSIONERS

At 12:24 p.m., Commr. Good returned the Chairmanship to
Commr. Gerber. It was noted that, at this time, the court reporter
stopped the discussion, in order to make necessary adjustments to
her equipment.

Charles E. Bradshaw LUPA - No. 94-1-1-2 (Continued)

Mr. Richey stated that he was requesting that the Board look
at this particular area in light of what has already been approved
in the area and allow him to meet the timeliness criteria. He
stated that the Board was not taking the suburban off of the map,
but approving a settlement of suburban that was already on the map,
by a 3-2 vote of the Board, which had been objected to by DCA based
on the allocations. He requested that the Board amend its Land Use
Map to deal with DCA's concerns about over allocation, or at least
have staff prepare a Settlement Agreement for the Board to consider
at some future date.

Mr. Howell referred to a letter dated January 26, 1995, to
Mr. Mark Knight from DCA's Growth Management Administrator,
Mr. Mike McDaniel, and requested that the following highlighted
wording be read into the record:

"A corresponding Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment, showing
the properties from which densities have transferred, and their new
land use designations and intensities must be submitted".

Discussion occurred regarding the status of the map that had
been prepared by Mr. Knight, with several of the Commissioners
explaining that they wanted to see the map, before a decision was
made by the Board.

Commr. good stated that he would not enter into an agreement
until he saw the map that was prepared, which showed the lands that
were removed.

Commr. Good made a motion, which was seconded by
Commr. Cadwell, for the Board to postpone the decision on the
acceptance or rejection of the proposed settlement of DOAH
proceeding begun by DCA concerning Charles E. Bradshaw LUPA NO. 94-1-1-2, based on getting the information needed for the Board to
review, which would include the proposed Future Land Use Map that
shows the land that has been removed.

Under discussion, it was noted that the map that was prepared
by Mr. Knight was current from the time he prepared it, but that
the State, on a weekly basis, may be acquiring new lands.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was
carried by a 4-1 vote. Commr. Swartz voted "no".

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 12:55 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would
recess for lunch until 2 p.m.

COUNTY MANAGER

PUBLIC SERVICES/ROAD VACATIONS

Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, informed the Board
that an item needed to be added to the agenda, which was a request
to advertise Road Petition No. 786.

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, addressed the
Board and explained that the request was being made by the
developer of Eagle Ridge Subdivision for permission to advertise
the road vacation, in order to meet certain deadlines.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and
carried, the Board approved to place on the agenda the request for
permission to advertise Road Vacation Petition No. 786.

The motion was carried by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Cadwell not
being present for the discussion or vote.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and
carried, the Board approved to advertise Road Vacation Petition No.
786 for PCD, Inc./Jam-Lake Inc.

The motion was carried by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Cadwell not
being present for the discussion or vote.

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/COMMUNICATIONS

Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, referred to the
letter dated April 21, 1995, to Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner,
from Mr. Karl Kehde, Director, Land Use Forum Network, Inc.
(LUFNET), which explained his proposal to the County that included
airfare in the amount of $350 and a rental car at $180. The letter

indicated that usually the land owners were asked to consider
making a donation, if the process results in a land use plan that
works for them, and that this would be totally on a volunteer
basis. If the Board wanted to proceed in this direction, she would
go back and talk with him and get a letter of agreement, and look
at some of the other projects that he has done in various places.
A resume was attached to his letter. Ms. Whittle informed the
Board of the other individuals that had been contacted on this
issue. She stated that Ms. Marilyn Crotty, University of Central
Florida, and the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council
would like to be invited to observe the process, if this was the
direction of the Board.

Commr. Swartz informed the Board that there were many planners
from the cities that were interested in attending the meetings.

Discussion occurred regarding the intentions of LUFNET, which
was the understanding of the Board that it would facilitate
development of a plan that would include landowners, developers,
the County, adjacent landowners, and over that period of time that
he was here, a plan would be developed and brought to the Board for
a decision.

Ms. Whittle explained that the purpose, no matter who the
County used for the process, was to build a consensus among all of
the property owners and the County on what would be wanted on the
3,000 acres at Highways 19/27, which was the County's industrial
park, and basically, if there was no agreement, there would be no
plan.

Commr. Hanson stated that she did not have a problem of going
through the process, but she was concerned that the Board was going
down a path that would dictate what people could do with their
property.

It was noted that it was the feeling of the Board that
Ms. Whittle should move forward and continue to pursue LUFNET and
come back to the Board with a some type of letter of agreement.

Ms. Whittle stated that she would talk with people in the area
that have worked with Mr. Kehde and determine how well the process
was received and how well it worked and come back to the Board with
an agreement with him.

It was noted that a motion was not needed on the issue.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

COMMISSIONER GOOD - DISTRICT #2

COMMITTEES/APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS

Commr. Good discussed the request for approval to replace the
District 2 representative on the Lake County Board of Adjustments.
He stated that he had written Mr. Matthew Rice and told him that
they had a difference in philosophy, and he wanted someone who was
more in line with his philosophical outlook on the way communities
should grow, and thanked him for his years of service to the
County. He requested that the Board approve to remove Mr. Rice
from the Board of Adjustments, and he would then present someone as
a replacement for the Board's consideration.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and
carried unanimously, the Board approved to remove Mr. Matthew Rice
from the Board of Adjustments.

Commr. Good made a motion, which was seconded by
Commr. Swartz, to approve the appointment of Ms. Sheila Schneider
to the Board of Adjustments, to replace Mr. Matthew Rice.

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that she did not feel
the Board had enough background information on Ms. Schneider to
review.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was
carried by a 4-0 vote. Commr. Hanson voted "no".

REPORTS

COMMISSIONER GERBER - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT #1

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and
carried unanimously, the Board approved a Proclamation naming May
as Foster Parents Month in Lake County.

ADDENDUM NO. 1 - REPORTS

COMMISSIONER GERBER - CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT #1

Commr. Gerber presented a request for consideration of a
Resolution which would re-establish a Wetlands Committee to review
wetlands regulations and permitting and make recommendations to the
Board.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and
carried unanimously, the Board approved the Resolution re-establishing the Wetlands Committee, as stated above.

Mr. Gregg addressed the Board and presented a short statement
in behalf of NRAC expressing how hard NRAC had worked for two and
one-half years to develop programs, and to make recommendations to
the Board that were suitable to the unique situation of Lake
County.

Commr. Gerber noted that two members of NRAC were not present
today, Mr. Allen Harwicke and Mr. John Whitaker.

Mr. Jim Barker addressed the Board to explain that the Program
Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) depicted the key aspects of
the Environmental Resource Management Plan (ERMP) program
development and functions as a guide to monitor progress. These
aspects were as follows:

1. Evaluation and Prioritization

2. Analysis

3. Program Development Assessment

4. Draft Environmental Management Plan

5. Final Environmental Management Plan

6. Comp Plan Amendments and Implementation

Ms. Paula Blazer informed the Board that the summary of NRAC
was on the first two pages of the Memorandum dated April 27, 1995.
She explained that the booklet contained the backup material to the
first two pages. Ms. Blazer stated that staff was confident that
it would reach the analysis completion, as the Comprehensive Plan
required, by December, 1995. Ms. Blazer reviewed the following
List of Attachments contained in the package presented to the
Board:

1. Comprehensive Plan Policy 7-1.1 and 7-1.2

2. Natural Resources Advisory Committee Resolution

3. List of Committee Members

4. Comprehensive Plan Time Restraints

5. Timetable Listing by Plan Category

6. Program Review Status Table

7. Hazardous Waste Program Information

8. Habitat and Natural Areas Network Management Program Information

Ms. Blazer discussed Tab 6, the Program Review Status Table,
and explained that all of the programs would be reviewed and the
Status Table would reflect whether the program was being duplicated
by another agency, local, State, or Federal; if it was adequate as
the program existed today; and whether it needed to be expanded
based on the Comprehensive Plan policies.

Dr. Joe Branham addressed the Board and stated that many of
the policies rely on other agencies, particularly the St. Johns
River Water Management District (SJRWMD), and the Water Authority.
He stated that, since some of the County's responsibilities were
being deferred to other agencies, he was concerned about what was
going to happen when the State withdrew the aid that the County was
getting from those agencies.

Commr. Swartz explained that the Comprehensive Plan mandates
certain reviews and outcomes, and the County was responsible for
seeing that these were accomplished. If the State did withdraw
some of the assistance the County was getting from certain
agencies, the County would have to look at those areas to insure
that those goals and objectives were still being met.

Mr. Terrell Davis addressed the Board and stated that the
Conservation Element was one of the most comprehensive elements in
the State of Florida, because it had more policies in it. He
stated that 63% of the policies were already being met.

Discussion occurred regarding the action that was needed by
the Board on the presentation made by NRAC.

Commr. Swartz suggested that staff start bringing some issues
to the Board for action. It was noted that it may take
Comprehensive Plan amendments to change some policies, and others
may need to appear in the budget cycle, for their implementation.

Commr. Hanson discussed the Adopt-A-Lake Program, which
Mr. Barker assisted her in preparing, which would require the
funding of a coordinator who would work with the different entities
that deal with lakes in Lake County. She noted that the first page
of the backup consisted of the title, proposal and justification,
which was prepared by Mr. Barker and based on the Comprehensive
Plan, and the second page was a proposal that the Extension Service
had put together last year. Commr. Hanson stated that it would
take action of the Board to approve funding for the position in the
upcoming budget. It was noted that the position would be an
Environmental Specialist II, or equivalent, in the approximate
amount of $41,000.

Commr. Swartz suggested that the desire to have a coordinator
would be the type of thing that would need to go through the
prioritization and cost reviewing approach that was being done by
NRAC. He then discussed the ranking of the Surface Water Quality
Restoration and Conservation Plans indicated on the Status Table,
Attachment 6.

Discussion occurred regarding the Lake Watch Program, and the
sampling tasks that were being handled by the volunteers, and the

Adopt-A-Lake Program, which would allow each community to adopt its
own lakes and develop its own monitoring system.

Commr. Gerber suggested that a presentation be made to the
Board on the Adopt-A-Lake Program.

Mr. Davis stated that NRAC had hoped to develop a method in
which to accomplish what was contained in the Conservation Element.
It was his understanding, after further discussion with the Board,
that the Board wanted NRAC to bring forth policies at a reasonable
rate.

Mr. Gary Race explained that, if a program was ranked
adequate, it did not mean that there was no room for improvement,
but that, in terms of the analysis, it appeared that State
agencies, or other agencies, or the County was currently doing the
minimal to say that the policy was being implemented through the
Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and through the agencies.

Mr. Barker explained that the ranking of the programs was done
without dollar values. He stated that, if staff found in the
future that it could do a multitude of the programs together at a
fairly low cost, they could be brought back to NRAC for an
evaluation.

Discussion occurred regarding NRAC taking the top ten ranked
programs and presenting them to the Board with a recommendation.

Commr. Gerber addressed Attachment 6 and stated that the Board
had heard a recommendation made earlier in the meeting for the re-activation of the Land Acquisition Committee, and the Board felt
that the Land Acquisition Committee could possibly become a sub-committee of NRAC, with the recommendation coming through NRAC.

She explained that action on the recommendation was deferred, until
it could be presented at this time to the members of NRAC.

Commr. Swartz stated that the Board had discussed the
possibility of amending the Resolution, so that NRAC could have a
sub-committee made up of some of the NRAC members and supplemented
with other individuals who might want to serve.

Discussion occurred regarding the suggestion being made for a
sub-committee to NRAC. Mr. Gregg stated that NRAC would meet and
discuss the issue of a sub-committee and come back with its
feelings on the issue and a recommendation.

It was noted that action would be postponed on the development
of a sub-committee to NRAC, until the item was discussed by NRAC
and placed on the Board's agenda for discussion.

Commr. Swartz stated that the next step would be for NRAC to
take the five or ten programs and put them into as much of a
programmatic and cost recommendation and bring those to the Board.

Commr. Hanson stated that, when NRAC reviewed the idea of a
coordinator, it should consider the coordinator enhancing those
programs that may be considered adequate, but need enhancement.

Commr. Gerber suggested getting an Adopt-A-Lake Program to
make a presentation to NRAC.

Ms. Sue Whittle, Interim County Manager, stated that, in the
program analysis, where duplicated effort has been found, she hoped
a recommendation would be made as to what programs may be
eliminated, or combined with others, and she noted that the County
was to pay for the new things that it wanted to do. She stated
that Comprehensive Plan required the County to eliminate
duplication.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 3:20 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would
recess for five minutes.

TIMES CERTAIN/AGENDA UPDATE

STATE AGENCIES

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, informed the
Board that the presentation on U.S. 27 Corridor by the Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) had been changed to a
presentation on S.R. 40.

Mr. William Sloup, FDOT, addressed the Board and stated that
FDOT was beginning an environmental impact statement for S.R. 40.

The study would look at widening S.R. 40 to four lanes, from Silver
Springs eastward to U.S. 17 in Barberville. He informed the Board
that, in 1987, FDOT began a 60 mile study, and when it went through
the public hearing process, there were many concerns raised about
the impacts to wildlife in the Ocala National Forest. Mr. Sloup
stated that the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), who was
working with FDOT, gave its approval for the plan from Barberville
east, but informed FDOT that it needed to re-address the issues
that were brought up in the Ocala National Forest. He explained
the process that FDOT had taken to re-address those issues and
discussed the alternatives to four-laning S.R. 40, which included
the no-build option (to do nothing), and the possibility of four-laning C.R. 42. The State Legislature mandated the Florida
Intrastate Highway System, a network of highways across the State
of Florida, composed of the existing interstate system, the
turnpike system, and some select State roads that could be upgraded
and incorporated into the Intrastate System, to move traffic inter-regionally. He noted that S.R. 40 has been determined to be a link
in the system. Mr. Slout stated that the plan was now complete, as
it was being presented, after many revisions through the years, but
it did not mean it was unalterable. The plan was envisioned to be
in place by 2020. Mr. Slout explained that the plan was developed
after consulting with different agencies, the citizens and
environmental groups, with the result being a consensus by all
involved.

Discussion occurred regarding FDOT's long range plan being in
line with the different County Comprehensive Plans.

Commr. Good stated that the deciding of S.R. 40 may not serve
the local community as much as an alternative, and in the proposed
Resolution from the Board, it was asking FDOT to consider
alternatives, in particular the southern route and perhaps the
Palatka 20 route. He stated that a route other than S.R. 40 would

probably serve the County's interest from an economic perspective
and would address the environment concerns in the forest.

Commr. Hanson stated that she agreed that, if the route came
further south, it would affect Lake County more economically. She
suggested that most of the people in Ocala would head to the beach
in Daytona regardless of whether there was another road.
Commr. Hanson noted that she understood studies had been done for
the four laning of roads and how they would be more protective for
the animals than two laning.

Commr. Swartz stated that, as it was being suggested, if the
densities of traffic were going to increase, the Board may want to
look at a mass transit alternative rather than four laning the
road. He stated that there was a portion of S.R. 40 in Lake County
that, to four lane it would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive
Plan that was reviewed and approved by FDOT. He stated that the
Comprehensive Plan did allow four laning in a portion in Astor.

Mr. Sloup stated that FDOT was considering S.R. 40 as a "goods
and people" mover. He explained the method that was used by FDOT
to evaluate each alternative route, which included traffic studies,
and stated that FDOT determined it would get more than 25 years
worth of operation on S.R. 40 at a good level of service.

Commr. Swartz clarified that FDOT was inclined towards S.R. 40
mainly because, at least through the forest section of corridor,
you would not see the type of commercialization that would
deteriorate the road. He stated that he appreciated, from FDOT's
perspective, the cities and counties having done an absolutely
abominable job of trying to protect traffic corridors from allowing
strip commercial in the past. In the future, the County needed to
do a better job, because there was no doubt the County was not
getting its money worth, because roads were being built and very
shortly thereafter there was over capacity again, because cities
and counties have allowed development up and down the roads. He
stated that Lake County needed to look at other corridors, as well

as S.R. 40, and the counties and cities along those corridors, with
FDOT's encouragement, would need to do a better job of not
destroying the traffic patterns and have better development
patterns.

Mr. Skucellas stated that staff had met with him and discussed
Lake County transportation and requested that he make a
presentation to the Board. Mr. Skucellas explained that the
Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (CFRTA) was the
legal name for LYNX. He stated that LYNX was responsible for
Orange, Seminole and Osceola Counties and consisted of a Board of
Directors with nine members. Mr. Skucellas noted that the agency
was structured much like the Orlando Airport Authority, with a lot
of the funding coming from the local level, with some State and
Federal dollars. Mr. Skucellas stated that the mission of the
agency has been to re-energize the agency, which has existed since
1972. Today there were approximately 200 buses, with the three
counties having a population of approximately 1.3 million. An
estimation has been made that there would be over 2 million over
the next 15 years. He discussed the other two services offered by
LYNX, which included the para-transit operation, and the mobility
services program. Mr. Skucellas stated that, based on the
population, the agency should have approximately a 500-600 fleet
size. He stated that the top priority was to expand the local bus
service, and he explained the different measures that would be
taken to accomplish this priority. Mr. Skucellas stated that the
agency was working closely with FDOT on the Interstate 4 Multimodel
Master Plan. He stated that, so far, the light rail technology

seemed to be the most attractive and most workable for the three
counties. Mr. Skucellas made a presentation of the kinds of
services that LYNX was considering for the future. He discussed a
proposed sixth route, which would stretch from Sanford to downtown
Orlando and southwest to Disney Celebration, which would be a 51
mile corridor. The conception would be to link up what he was
terming as activity centers with high capacity transit.
Mr. Skucellas stated that LYNX was completing its MIS, which was a
major investment study, which had been prescribed by the Federal
government on the entire corridor planning effort, and then it
would be moving to the environmental impact stage, and the
preliminary engineering. An estimated cost of $20-25 million per
mile has been established on a light rail system. Mr. Skucellas
stated that LYNX has recently completed a Transit Design Manual
which talks about local developments, and how they can be situated
and designed in a way that they were more pedestrian friendly, and
in the long term, more transit friendly, as opposed to what was
being seen today in the development pattern. He stated that his
mission was to get the awareness level up in the community, and to
get support to greatly expand the system, and to get the first
operating segment of rail in place close to the year 2000, and to
set a long term plan that would allow some of the other
improvements to go forward.

Commr. Good stated that, as a representative of the south
district of Lake County, he would appreciate any input from LYNX in
helping to bring the South Lake Trail across from the West Orange
Trail and across South Lake County.

Commr. Swartz encouraged staff to get more information on the
van plan approach that LYNX was taking, because this might be
something that would help the County through the Highway 441
corridor.

Mr. Skucellas presented the Board with a package of
information about LYNX and its services. He suggested that the

County give some consideration to doing a transportation plan for
the County, and to consider making it a surface transportation
plan, highway and transit, and begin to get more detailed
information about the activity centers and travel demands.

Mr. Stivender informed the Board that $50,000 had been
budgeted in next years budget for a study.

Mr. Skucellas discussed the merger of two separate entities,
the Central Florida Commuter Rail Authority and the Orange,
Seminole and Osceola Transportation Authority, and the history of
the three routes that now service Osceola County, and how they are
paid for within their jurisdiction. He stated that the three
routes were costing the cities approximately $800,000.

Ms. Mary Ann Bardon, Transportation Engineer, Public Services,
addressed the Board to discuss the Transit Development Plan, which
would be all mass transit, and stated that it would go along with
the Transit Element in the Comprehensive Plan.

The Board extended its appreciation to Mr. Skucellas for the
presentation, and Mr. Skucellas expressed that LYNX would be glad
to give the County any assistance, or share any documentation from
its transportation development plan and strategic plan.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 4:50 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would
recess until 6 p.m. for the public hearing on the Land Development
Regulations (LDRs).

PUBLIC HEARING

LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRs)

Commr. Gerber called the public hearing to order and explained
the public hearing policy that would be used for the meeting, and
the Notice of Appearance cards that needed to be completed by
anyone wishing to speak before the Board. Commr. Gerber noted that
staff would be making its presentation first before public comment
would be taken.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, addressed the
Board and explained that all of the information before the Board
was the same as the Board had before it two weeks ago, except for
two changes, a proposed amendment to Section 14.10.05, Lot Split
Applications Filed Prior to (effective date of this Ordinance),
which was received from Commr. Swartz, and a proposed amendment to
Section 14.10.02, Family Lot Split, which was received from
Commr. Cadwell. Mr. Hoban explained each amendment to the Board.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether, in the proposed amendment to
the Family Lot Split, in the 1/2 mile radius, it would include both
incorporated and unincorporated areas, and Mr. Hoban explained that
it would include both. Commr. Swartz stated that the Board may
wish to include this language, and staff made a note to address the
issue at the appropriate time.

In addressing the amendment to Lot Split Applications,
Mr. Hoban noted that the amendment would require that all lot split
applications that were currently pending, and would not be
finalized prior to May 12, 1995, shall adhere to the Comprehensive
Plan.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulations Division,
informed the Board that there were approximately 172 applications
in the office, with 92 coming in since January 1, 1995.

Mr. Hoban noted that the effective date of the Ordinance was
currently proposed to be May 14, 1995. Mr. Hoban presented the
Board with a brief history of the development of the Land
Development Regulation (LDR) Committee, and its duties, and noted
that the LDR Committee totally re-wrote the Concurrency Ordinance,
as well as made a proposal regarding timeliness. Mr. Hoban stated
that both of these proposals made by the LDR Committee were
accepted by the Board almost in their entirety, and that minor
changes had also been taken to the LDR Committee, which were almost
unchanged by the Board.

The Chairman opened the public hearing portion of the meeting.

The following individuals and representatives addressed the
Board to discuss specific issues relating to their property, or to
property owned by individuals being represented; to question how
the changes and new regulations being proposed would affect the
future plans for development of property; to voice their opposition
or support of the proposed changes; to offer alternatives to the
proposed changes; and it was noted that staff would be presenting
comments of clarification throughout the entire public hearing:

Let it be noted that all material submitted to the Board was
collected and filed in the Board Support Division of the Clerk's
Office.

At 11:35 p.m., the Chairman closed the public hearing portion
of the meeting.

Commr. Hanson noted that one option by the Board today was to
leave the issues as they currently existed. She stated that, if
what the Board had already established complied with the
Comprehensive Plan, there would be no reason for the Board to move
forward, if the County was only going to get more restrictive. She
stated that the paved road requirements and the number of lots (6)
should remain the same. She stated that there were good
suggestions made for the survey requirement, which would allow for
a boundary sketch, which should be included; variances should be
allowed for everything and be addressed by the Board of
Adjustments; and all other requirements to comply with the
Comprehensive Plan were being adhered to, and she saw no reason to
change anything. Commr. Hanson stated that the proposed changes
tonight would force urban sprawl and would allow for services to be

provided in the rural areas, which according to the Comprehensive
Plan, the County did not want to do. She addressed the issue of
five acre tracts and stated that the proposal tonight would further
restrict the property rights of those people who have financially
supported the County for many, many years. She stated that these
were her recommendations.

Commr. Good stated that there were specific issues that ought
to be addressed based on the comments received from the public. He
wanted to see the Board take action on the entire document tonight
by going through one item at a time.

Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by
Commr. Cadwell, to leave the regulations as currently established,
for lot splits, the minor lots splits, the family lot splits, and
the agricultural lot splits, allowing for the survey changes and
allowing for variances.

Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell stated that the whole process
was started to simplify the lot split process, but apparently by
looking at the people who would be affected by the process, it was
not simplifying anything. He understood the perception being
perceived about people using the lot split process to circumvent
the subdivision regulations, but he did not feel this was being
done by the majority of the people. He explained that the process
was pretty comprehensive right now for lot splits and suggested
that the majority of the Board leave the process as established and
move forward and review the other LDRs that needed to be addressed
and given to DCA.

Mr. Stubbs explained that, from staff's standpoint, he could
not see any abuse of the regulations. Mr. Stubbs presented the
Board with a Memorandum, which provided a breakdown of the lot
split applications from October 1, 1993 through September 30, 1994.

Staff members present explained that they were unable to
determine that there was any abuse of the regulations, in terms of
lot splits.

Commr. Swartz explained the original intention for family lot
splits, which was to allow family members, who legitimately wanted
to split property off for family members, either ascending, or
descending, to be able to do so. There was no need to limit the
creation to two lots, because they should be allowed, within the
context of other criteria that existed, to be able to split for
family lot splits.

Commr. Hanson stated that she would amend her motion to
include the language regarding family lots splits, as stated by
Commr. Swartz. Commr. Cadwell agreed to amend his second to the
motion.

Commr. Swartz addressed lot splits and stated that he did feel
there was a valid argument to suggest that the lot process right
now was a tool that avoids a subdivision process, and it should not
be allowed to do this. He further stated that this was not
intended to force people into urban areas, because there was the
ability to split lots today on County maintained roads all over the
County, and his intent was to stop the non-standard subdivision of
property that does not provide, at a minimum, the road.
Commr. Swartz stated that he would support a change to the family
density exception on the issue of lots splits, but he would
respectfully vote against the motion, which essentially eliminates
all of the work the Board has been doing during the last months,
including the Ad Hoc Committee, and for which there was, for the
most part, a unanimous support for it throughout the workshop
process. He urged the Board to vote against the motion and move
forward.

Commr. Hanson stated that, over the years, subdivisions were
put into place with no requirements for paved roads, which were now
required. She stated that the Board was looking at the division of
property that has a deminimous impact, or no impact, on the
services and environment in the area.

Commr. Gerber stated that the County would not be having such
problems, if it did not have growth, but because of growth, the
County needed to move forward, in order to address the problems.
She stated that she was not going to support the motion.

Commr. Good stated that he was not going to support the
motion.

Commr. Cadwell explained that most of the road problems had
been in the Shockley Heights area, which was not created by lot
splits. The complaints that staff has received on roads comes from
old platted subdivisions, not from lot splits.

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director, Public Services, addressed the
Board and discussed the complaints received on roads, the number of
special assessments that have been done, and the initial special
assessment program, which was to reduce the number of miles of
rights-of-way in the old plats from Astor, to Mount Plymouth, to
south Lake County. He stated that this had reduced the clay roads
by 1/3, but the County was revenue short to continue to reduce, not
only the special assessments, but the clay to paved roads.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, as amended. The
motion failed by a 3-2 vote. Commrs. Swartz, Good, and Gerber
voted "no".

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 12:10 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would
take a ten minute recess.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LAKE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT

REGULATIONS (Continued)

14.10.00 MINOR LOT SPLITS, FAMILY LOT SPLITS, AND

AGRICULTURAL LOT SPLITS

It was noted that the County Attorney's Office had prepared a
draft of the Minor Subdivision changes, which was dated April 13,
1995. At this time, the Board discussed each proposed change and
took action on each.

Section 14.10.02 Family Lot Splits

D. Standards

Mr. Hoban requested that the proposed language in D. 1. under
Standards be eliminated and replaced with the following:

"Only as many lots may be created as the number of descendants
or ascendants plus one for the subdividing family member."

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and
carried unanimously, the Board approved to substitute the language
presented by Mr. Hoban in D. 1. Standards for the ascending and
descending number plus one, as stated above.

It was noted that several individuals were present in the
audience, including Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, Ms. Leslie
Campione, Attorney, and Ms. Bonnie Roof, to discuss the changes.

D. Standards

D. Standards, 8. BCC Option and 8. Staff Option.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by
Commr. Hanson to approve the following:

STAFF OPTION (Page 5)

8. Parcels created for family members must be retained by the
family members for three (3) years, pursuant to County approved
deed restrictions recorded in the public records. This requirement
shall not apply to institutional lenders who obtain ownership as a
result of foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure.

Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell amended the motion to include
"institutional lenders or first lien holder". After further
discussion, Commr. Cadwell withdrew his amendment, with the motion
standing as originally presented.

The Chairman called for a vote on the original motion, which
was carried unanimously.

Section 14.10.05, Lot Split Applications Filed Prior to

(effective date of this Ordinance)

Memorandum dated May 2, 1995 to Commr. Swartz

Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by
Commr. Cadwell, for the Board to approve the language pertaining to
Section 14.10.05, Lot Split Applications Filed Prior to (effective
date of this Ordinance), as stated in the Memorandum dated May 2,
1995, to Commr. Swartz from Mr. Hoban.

Under discussion, Mr. Hoban explained that this would allow
someone to apply for a Board of Adjustment (BOA) variance in July
for an August hearing under the old rules. It was noted that this
would allow applications that come in before the effective date of
the Ordinance, May 14, 1995, to have another six months to come to
the BOA for variances. It was also noted that this would include
the following language: No extension shall be granted to
Subsection 14.10.05.

Commr. Good called for the question, and the motion was
carried unanimously.

Section 14.10.02, Family Lot Split

Memorandum dated May 2, 1995 to Commr. Cadwell

Commr. Swartz suggested adding, for clarification, language
that would suggest that the radius figure would include either
incorporated or unincorporated areas.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and
carried unanimously, the Board approved the language pertaining to
Section 14.10.02, Family Lot Split, as stated in the Memorandum
dated May 2, 1995, to Commr. Cadwell from Mr. Hoban, with the
addition that the radius figure would include either incorporated
or unincorporated areas.

3.11.04 Termination of Non-Conforming Uses and Development

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and
carried unanimously, the Board approved the language pertaining to
Section 3.11.04, Termination of Non-Conforming Uses, as presented.

14.10.01 Minor Lot Splits

D. Standards

Commr. Hanson made a motion to approve the COMMITTEE OPTION
six (6) lots to be created per original parcel. (page 2)

After discussion of the procedures that the Board would take
to review documentation, Commr. Hanson withdrew her motion.

Table of Zoning District - III-23 - 4/13/95

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and
carried unanimously, the Board approved the Table that incorporates
the conditional use for "tower", as presented.

1.02.17 Mobile Homes - Chapter 7 (Wekiva)

1.02.18 Mobile Homes - Except Chapter 7 (Wekiva)

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and
carried, the Board approved the language for Sections 1.02.17 and
1.02.18, as presented.

The motion was carried by a 4-0 vote. Commr. Cadwell was not
present for the discussion or vote.

14.10.01 Minor Lot Splits

D. Standards

Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by
Commr. Cadwell, to approve the COMMITTEE OPTION, six (6) lots to be
created per original parcel. (page 2)

Under discussion, Commr. Good suggested the number four, in
order to compromise on the issue.

Commr. Swartz stated that he would support two and vote
against the motion for six, after hearing from the public.

Commr. Hanson suggested that there were still ways that the
six lot splits could be allowed, because there were already
regulations that were not quite as comprehensive as those now being
required for a full subdivision. She felt that this could be
addressed in policy.

Commr. Gerber stated that she never had indicated that she
would agree to anything in a lot split process that was over two,
and she would never agree to anything over two that she would not
require a platting process, in order to go forward.

Commr. Swartz urged the Board that the whole purpose of the
exercise on lot splits was to get to a rationale, and he felt that
two or beyond two, you would go through the minor subdivision
process.

Commr. Good called for the question.

The motion failed by a 3-2 vote. Commrs. Swartz, Good and
Gerber voted "no".

Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by
Commr. Hanson, to approve four lots to be created per original
parcel.

Under discussion, Commr. Gerber stated that she was more
interested in the review process, and she felt certain that the
Board could put into place a mini-plat procedure for 3 to 10 lots,
in order to have the assurances that were needed for roads, etc.,
and the service delivery would be less burdensome on the County
taxpayer.

Commr. Good called for the question.

The motion failed by a 3-2 vote. Commrs. Swartz, Good and
Gerber voted "no".

Commr. Good made a motion to delete the word "entirely" from
line 14, BCC OPTION ONE, and from line 20, BCC OPTION TWO.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that BCC OPTION TWO
provided for more flexibility.

Commr. Hanson stated that she would vote against BCC OPTION
TWO, because of the 20 acres.

Commr. Good withdrew him motion, due to the lack of a second.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Swartz and
carried unanimously, the Board approved to strike the word
"entirely" from line 20, BCC OPTION TWO.

Discussion occurred regarding BCC OPTION TWO, with Mr. Hoban
explaining that, if you split the 20 acres, you must front on
either a publicly maintained clay road, or a dirt easement.

Commr. Swartz stated that all lots under 20 acres have to be
on a publicly maintained paved road and meet the minimum zoning
criteria for frontage; if it was a minimum of 20 acres, you would
not have to meet the paved requirement, and it would allow you to
split on either a County maintained clay road, or an easement that
met the other criteria.

Commr. Hanson stated that she still felt that 20 acres was too
large to down an easement.

Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by
Commr. Good, to approve BCC OPTION TWO, with the word "entirely"
already being stricken, and with the language as underlined on
page 2.

Under discussion, Mr. Hoban clarified the difference between
Option One and Option Two.

Commr. Good called for the question.

The motion was carried by a 4-1 vote. Commr. Hanson voted
"no".

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and
carried unanimously, the Board approved to change the wording,
wherever discussed, from "family lot splits" to "family density
exception".

D. Standards

Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by
Commr. Cadwell, to approve the COMMITTEE OPTION, (page 3), as
follows: 5. Variances may be granted from Subsection 14.10.01 by
the Board of Adjustment.

Under discussion, staff presented clarification of the
language proposed in COMMITTEE OPTION, and the language on page 5
pertaining to easements utilized in Subsection 14.10.02(D)(5).

Commr. Hanson withdrew her motion, and Commr. Cadwell withdrew
his second to the motion.

Ms. Bonnie Roof addressed the Board to discuss a document
called a "Private Non-Exclusive Easement" that was currently being

used and allowed those who have obtained a BOA variance waiving the
public dedication, to use this document for recording, and it keeps
the easement private, but it also allows ambulances, garbage
trucks, school buses, and Sheriff's vehicles to have the right to
go down the roads.

Commr. Swartz suggested that staff create language that would
reflect the information supplied by Ms. Roof, and provides the
flexibility that, when it fact, it does need to be a publicly
dedicated easement, that it occurs, and this was a part of the
review of the future road corridor needs.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and
carried unanimously, the Board approved to eliminate the length
(1,320) requirement for the easement and allow it to be a privately
dedicated non-exclusive easement, except in Section e. and the
review of what would be future road corridors where there would be
the requirement for it to be a publicly dedicated road based on the
width. (page 5)

14.10.03 AGRICULTURAL LOT SPLITS

It was the consensus of the Board to approve the following
language: The County may approve an agricultural lot split of a
legally created lot, that conforms to the requirements of this
subsection.

D. Standards

Extensive discussion occurred regarding the language on Page
6, 10. pertaining to parcels created for family members.

Commr. Swartz suggested that the proposed language be adopted,
and in the next round of LDRs, the Board could develop a way to
address the issue pertaining to parcels created for family members.

Discussion occurred regarding Page 8, with it being noted that
the BCC OPTION and COMMITTEE OPTION had been eliminated.

After extensive discussion regarding COMMITTEE OPTION, on Page
3, 5., Variances may be granted from Subsection 14.10.01 by the
Board of Adjustment, Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was
seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to approve to allow for variances and
limiting the variance to the lot size.

Under discussion, staff explained how staff currently handled
short sections and long sections, as indicated on old surveys of
properties.

Commr. Hanson called for the question.

The motion was carried by a unanimous vote.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and
carried unanimously, the Board approved to provide for a variance
no greater than 10% of the required acreage.

14.18.01 GENERALLY

It was noted that it was the consensus of the Board to approve
the following: The purpose of the section is to provide a review
process for minor subdivision of legally created lots, or a replat
of land into ten (10) or fewer residential lots.

14.18.07 Recommendation to Proceed

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and
carried unanimously, the Board approved nine (9) months in the
appropriate sections under Section 14.18.07.

14.18.12 TOLLING OF TIME

14.18.13 Appeals

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and
carried unanimously, the Board approved 14.18.12 Tolling of Time,
as presented, and 14.18.13 Appeals, as presented.

14.18.01 GENERALLY

Discussion occurred regarding a review process for minor
subdivisions of legally created lots, or a replat of land into ten
(10) or fewer residential lots, as the Board had agreed to above.
Commr. Hanson suggested that the ten be changed to 20 lots.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Swartz and
carried unanimously, the Board approved 20 lots in 14.18.01,
Generally.

Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by
Commr. Good, to adopt the lot split language, as had been amended
from the April 13, 1995 draft, in addition to all of the other
changes the Board previously added by amendment.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz suggested that the Board ask
staff to review the road standards particularly in light of what
would be minor subdivisions and determine whether any modifications
in terms of width or other standards should be perhaps considered.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was
carried by a 3-2 vote. Commrs. Hanson and Cadwell voted "no".

Commr. Hanson stated that she strongly felt that the Board
should not be limiting it to the six lot split on the minor lot
split, and not requiring the 20 acres, if there were going to be
two lots.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and
carried unanimously, the Board approved to authorize the Public
Services Department to review the road right-of-way and standards,
as they pertain to minor subdivisions, and to come back with
possible recommendations for Board consideration.

Commr. Swartz stated that the language in Concurrency needed
to be modified, with regard to lot splits, changing it to two (2)
where appropriate, and indicating where it was three (3) and above.

Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by
Commr. Good, that staff make, within the Concurrency of the LDRs,
those modifications subsequent to the Board's changes on the lot
splits.

Under discussion, Commr. Gerber expressed a problem with the
three (3) lot concurrency review, and stated that she did not feel
it should be any more than in the past. It was noted that it was
currently three.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was
carried unanimously.

Page V - 19 - Concurrency Management

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and
carried unanimously, the Board approved Page V - 19 for Concurrency
Management, providing that a one year window, as presented.

14.18.00 Platting Procedures and Requirements for Minor

Subdivisions of Land

Mr. Richey addressed the Board to discuss Section. 14.18.00
and to question the standards for paving. He stated that the
language did not specify paved roads.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and
carried unanimously, the Board approved for the County Attorney's
Office to insert the appropriate paving language where needed in
Section 14.18.00.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and
carried unanimously, the Board approved the concurrency language,
as amended.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and
carried unanimously, the Board approved the following minor changes
under concurrency under the mining site plan: update the Bureau of
Land and Water Management, which is now obsolete, and change CUP to
MSP.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and
carried unanimously, the Board approved 13.06.02 Powers and Duties,
to include the powers for the Code Enforcement Board, and to modify
it by adding 9.08 to exclude Code Enforcement and 9.08 which it is
stormwater and goes to the Environmental Protection Board.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and
carried unanimously, the Board approved the following: criteria
for the placement of septic tanks in the Green Swamp Area of
Critical State Concern; criteria for the timing of residential
development in the Suburban and Transitional land use categories;
and other minor amendments to the Land Development Regulations
proposed for clarification purposes.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and
carried, the Board approved the definitions to be added to Chapter
II regarding bed and breakfasts, as proposed.

The motion was carried by a 4-1 vote, with Commr. Cadwell
voting "no".

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Good and
carried unanimously, the Board approved the resolution (1995-102)
determining a capacity reservation for concurrency.

Mr. Richey appeared before the Board and stated, for the
record, that, because of the options taken into consideration by
the Board, and he was following Ms. Campione, the Board did not put
into public record and have a public notice efficient to have the
second reading tonight on all of the options discussed, so for the
purpose of the record, he would object to the Board having voted on
the ordinance, as well as the various options, as it has not been
consistent with the Florida law, for the purposes of preserving his
right to appeal the Board's decision.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention
of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 2:05 a.m., May 3, 1995.